There shouldn't be any unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the national budget to begin with.

This was the common reaction of House minority bloc members Akbayan Party-list Rep. Perci Cendaña and Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima on President Marcos' decision to veto nearly P92.5 billion worth of line items under the unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA). 

"The President's veto of (UA) items in the 2026 national budget is the direct consequence of popular vigilance and pressure. He and his Cabinet should not congratulate themselves for their newfound commitment to fiscal discipline and prudence," Cendaña said in a statement.

"The President and his Cabinet's assurances of greater fiscal prudence ring hollow. Sa simula't sapul, dapat walang unprogrammed appropriations at mga patronage-based programs sa ating national budget. Sa kanila rin naman galing ang naunang P249.9 hillion peso budget para sa UA, na originally ay nasa NEP (National Expenditure Program)," he said.

(From the very start, there should be no unprogrammed appropriations and patronage-based programs in our national budget. The earlier P249.9 billion peso budget for UA also came from them, which was originally in the NEP.)

Cendaña further reckoned that, "On the contrary, without the recent waves of citizens' protest and calls for transparency, the Marcos administration would have likely permitted a much higher UA for this year."

The NEP, which emanates from Malacañang, is the basis of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB). Once signed by the President, the GAB becomes the GAA. For rhsi year, the GAA is worth a record P6.793 trillion.

De Lima expressed even more disdain for UAs. "UAs have no place in the national budget!" she said in a separate statement.

"Vetoing a considerably significant amount—or any amount—in [UA] s NOT the point. It is still 'shadow pork'," she said, referring to discretionary "pork barrel" funds that are prone to corruption.

"As succinctly pointed out in the separate concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Hernando in the PhilHealth case, [UA] are unconstitutional. They lack definite and identifiable revenue sources, bypass constitutional safeguards, and surrender congressional power of the purse to executive discretion," explained the former senator.

De Lima went on to remind President Marcos that an admission from Executive Secretary Ralph Recto himself showed dim hopes for UA funding.

"Inamin mismo ni ES and former Finance Secretary Ralph Recto na halos wala na raw excess revenue to be collected. So, hindi po ba illogical nang magka-UAs, in the first place? ( ES himself and former Finance Secretary Ralph Recto admitted that there is almost no excess revenue left to be collected. So, isn’t it illogical to even have UAs in the first place?)"

"Kung halos wala nang excess revenues ang aasahan, anong pera ang igagasta sa mga UAs? Bakit pa magsasalpak ng mga items sa UA? Uulit-ulitin natin: Yung mga talagang kailangan ay dapat inilalagay na sa programmed appropriations," she underscored.

(If there are practically no excess revenues to expect, what money will be spent on the UAs? Why insert items into the UA? Let us repeat: those that are truly necessary should already be placed in the programmed appropriations.)

"At doon naman sa mga hindi pa kayang isama due to limited fiscal space, at sakaling magkapera na dahil sa excess revenues, then special appropriations from Congress ang dapat," De Lima added.

(And for those that cannot yet be included due to limited fiscal space, if ever funds become available because of excess revenues, then special appropriations from Congress should be the proper course.)